Before we jump the gun and assume that video games reflect violence towards are growing society of teens and under aged gamers, we should look back at what excatly video games were made for. The early stages of videogames was an escape or entertainment for the average life (in a sense), it's primary purpose was onlt to keep us Americans from the regular old boring lives that we've always had. The idea of a game being violent is due to the fact that the person that's probably playing that game is essentially under age of the rating placed bluntly on the game's case.

Now, these ideas of games not being any harm to teens may be a bit controversal for those who disagree, but the simple fact is games are going to be games and if the parents don't take part in their child's choice to play these so called violent games then to them (the adults) the game is considered violent and to the kids it may be considered violent. But overall that so called violent game is still a game like any other, its up to the parents to recognize and realize what ratings are meant for and take charge.

To conclude, the responsibility of the parent plays an extreme part in what polotics call video game violence. So with that in mind, parents need to get involved with their kids' gaming history and nullify or accept the rating on that game for the child.This may politics won't ramble on about how violent video games should be banned and rather should be cautiously looked over by the guardians of today's teeage society and in the long run this may be able to help the gaming industry to flurish instend of worrying about the next complication.